ID: 22559.drn

William Kurtz, Department Manager
Environmental & Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350





Dear Mr. Kurtz:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. You wish to know whether your proposed vehicle design, in which the park position control is not included in the shift lever sequence, but is activated by a separate push-button control mounted on the end of the transmission shift lever, must meet the park position requirement in S3.1.1 of Standard No.102. As explained below, the answer is no.

Before addressing the substantive question that you raised, I note that you have asked for confidential treatment of certain bracketed information in your request for an interpretation, and have provided copies of the letter with the confidential information redacted. In order to save time, I agree to keep confidential the bracketed information, with the exception of a quotation from a letter of September 25, 1998, from Frank Seales, Jr., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, to BMW of North America, Inc., which is a publicly available letter.

Paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No 102, Location of transmission shift lever positions on passenger cars, states, in part, " . . . If the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position." [emphasis added.]

This provision was interpreted by this office in a letter of September 25, 1998, to BMW of North America, Inc., (BMW). In that letter, we stated in part:

Paragraph S3.1.1 explicitly limits the requirement to those park positions included within the "shift lever sequence." It is our interpretation that if park is not selected by the movement of the shift lever, then the park control is not part of the shift lever sequence. In this case, the sentence quoted above does not apply, and the park control does not have to be located at the end, adjacent to reverse.

The park position described in your letter is not included in the shift lever sequence. It is selected not by the movement of the shift, lever but by pushing on a push-button control mounted on the end of the transmission shift lever. Therefore, as was the case for the vehicle with the park position control described in our September 25, 1998, letter to BMW, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC's vehicle with the park position control described in your letter need not meet the park position requirement in S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:102
d.2/2/01

ID: 2255y

Mr. Scott K. Hiler
Manager, R & D Lab
The C.E. White Co.
417 N. Kibler Street
New Washington, OH 44854

Dear Mr. Hiler:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210). Specifically, you asked if the strength test set forth in that standard requires simultaneous testing of all the safety belt anchorages for a passenger seat in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, when those anchorages are installed on the seat frame, or whether those anchorages can be tested individually. The answer is that such anchorages are tested individually under the current provisions of the strength test in Standard No. 210.

Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222) establishes the occupant protection requirements for passenger seating positions in school buses. Section S5(b) of Standard No. 222 provides that school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, among other standards. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test for anchorages. Section S4.2.4 reads as follows: "Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to those anchorages."

Note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are floor-mounted anchorages. The anchorages described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed with that letter are mounted on the seat frame. Therefore, those anchorages would not be tested simultaneously to determine compliance with Standard No. 210.

I should also point out that NHTSA has proposed to amend section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 so that all seat and floor-mounted anchorages common to one seat would be tested simultaneously during the strength test. I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information. The interpretation in this letter may no longer be correct after the effective date of any final rule adopting that proposal.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:210 d:l/l2/90

ID: 2256y

Ms. Linda L. Conrad
Nives Ford, Inc.
15690 South Harlem Avenue
Orland Park, IL 60462

Dear Ms. Conrad:

This responds to your letter asking what legal obligations are imposed on car dealers to replace air bags on used vehicles accepted as trade-ins. Your letter explained that your dealership has received, as a trade-in, a 1989 car that had a driver-side air bag as original equipment. According to your letter, the car had been in a crash and the air bag was deployed. Hence, when this car was taken in trade by your dealership, its air bag was not functional. You asked whether any law requires you to replace the deployed air bag with a new air bag before selling the car.

In response to your question, we can advise you as follows: (1) Federal law does not require a car dealer to replace a deployed air bag in a used vehicle; (2) a dealer may be required by State law to replace that equipment, or be liable for failure to do so; and (3) our agency strongly encourages dealers to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

We will first address the Federal legal issues, since our agency administers the Federal vehicle safety law. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The requirement for automatic crash protection was phased-in for passenger cars, beginning with 1987 model year new cars. That phase-in is now completed, and all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." (Emphasis added) Because of this statutory requirement, your dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag if you know that the air bag has been deployed.

However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) "shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." In other words, once the 1989 Chrysler LeBaron described in your letter was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Federal law to comply with Standard No. 208.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle ... will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

In the case of passenger cars equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the air bags, except as needed to make repairs to the car. When any such repairs are completed, the car must be returned to the customer with the air bag capable of functioning at least as well as it was able to do when the car was received by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, if your dealership purchases a used car that was originally equipped with an air bag pursuant to Standard No. 208, and the air bag was deployed before your dealership took possession of the car, Federal law does not require your dealership to replace the deployed air bag with a functioning air bag before you resell the car.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, dealers may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. You should be aware that the individual States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning when the used vehicles are sold. You may wish to contact the State of Illinois to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations that would apply in these circumstances. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Illinois regarding potential liability in tort for your dealership in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. The potential for finding a car dealer liable may be greater when that dealer sells a used vehicle without one of the originally-installed safety systems intact and functional.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy recommendation that dealers always replace air bags following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. Indeed, we have long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash, including the safety belts and brakes, as well as the air bag systems now being installed in passenger cars.

While air bags are in some respects "supplemental" to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Those vehicles are designed so that the air bag will always work, even if the safety belt is not worn; and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to the purchaser of the used car described in your letter -- in the vehicle owner's manual, from the carmaker and insurance companies, and from NHTSA and other safety groups -- would identify the car as one equipped with a driver-side air bag. The purchaser may well expect a used car to provide the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

In short, from the standpoints of auto safety, dealer risk management, consumer protection, customer relations, and good business practices, NHTSA strongly advocates the replacment of deployed air bags.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:l/l9/90

ID: 22584.ztv

Mr. Neil Mardell
Manager Product Development
Dynasty Motorcar Corporation
800 McCurdy Road
Kelowna, BC
Canada V1X 2P7





Dear Mr. Mardell:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 2001, enclosing documents in support of your request to import and sell your IT (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle) in the United States.

We understand that you have filed a Designation of Agent with this Office's General Law Division, and we have delivered the Acceptance of Appointment you enclosed to the appropriate attorney in the Division. Similarly, we have taken your Manufacturer Identification statement and sample compliance label to the appropriate Office in this agency.

There was no legal need for you to file the "proof of compliance with the requirements of FMVSS 500" because no approval is needed under the laws of the United States for you to export the vehicle to the United States from Canada.

The maximum speed test of the prototype IT resulted in a value of 39.998 km/h, barely beneath the definitional ceiling of 40 km/h for low-speed vehicles. Please note that each production IT must not exceed the definitional ceiling, not just the single prototype vehicle tested. The narrow margin of 0.002 km/h in the test of the prototype IT may not be sufficient to ensure that the maximum speed of production vehicles does not exceed 40 km/h. This is especially critical when the maximum speed of the IT is artificially limited by a programmable motor controller. Component tolerances, adjustments, environments, and manufacturing variables can result in different test results. If you have technical questions about Standard No. 500's test procedure, you may contact John Finneran of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (202-366-0645).

Your product literature notes the availability in late 2001 of two light utility versions of the IT. Under 49 CFR 571.3(b), a "low-speed vehicle" is defined in part as a vehicle "other than a truck." A "truck" is, among other things, "a vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of

property." The two light utility ITs are designed primarily to carry property and would be trucks. Trucks are not eligible for certification under Standard No. 500 even if their maximum speed does not exceed 40 km/h.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:500


d.3/8/01

ID: 22592.ztv

Mr. Art Tan
President
CNA Industries, Inc.
985 Los Lagos
Pomona, CA 91766





Dear Mr. Tan:

This is in reply to your undated letter which we received on January 8, 2001. You have informed us that you are making "small off-road utility vehicles mainly for golf courses." You have asked us to advise you "what category our vehicles fall in according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations."

The information you have submitted demonstrates your familiarity with the five factors that we use in our interpretations on whether certain vehicles are motor vehicles. You have addressed each of these factors in a manner to support a determination that the vehicles in question are not motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Specifically, according to your letter, the vehicles "are for ground maintenance work on golf courses," which is to say, their intended use is in an off-road application. The vehicles "will be distributed through "our turf & tractor dealers only." That is to say, they will not be sold by dealers in motor vehicles. Each owner will be provided a certificate advising that the vehicle has been manufactured for off-road applications only, and you will not provide any manufacturer's document that may help the owner register the vehicle for on-road use. That is consistent with a conclusion that the vehicles in question are not manufactured for on-road use. You will advertise only in publications for turf and ground maintenance. That is consistent with the purpose for which the vehicles have been manufactured. Finally, you will affix four labels to the vehicle advising that it is an "off road" vehicle and must not be used on the public roads. Whether a vehicle will bear warning labels is the fifth factor we examine, and you have answered this, too, in a manner that permits us to conclude that your vehicles are not motor vehicles.

Therefore, based on the representations in your letter and considering all the five factors discussed above, on balance, we believe that your vehicles are not "motor vehicles." However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn, for example, the vehicles are in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:571

d.3/27/01

ID: 22594

Mr. Henry E. Seiff, P.E.
Director of Technology
The Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 850
Arlington, VA 22209





Dear Mr. Seiff:

This is in response to your letter of January 3, 2001, in which you request an interpretation of the bonfire test procedures of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 304, "Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently amended these procedures, and you ask whether the new procedures specify both a horizontal and vertical test for compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel containers less than 1.65 meters in length, or only a horizontal test. The answer is the new procedures specify only a horizontal test for such containers.

In the past, Standard No. 304 did specify that CNG fuel containers less than 1.65 meters in length were tested in both the horizontal and vertical positions. However, on October 30, 2000, NHTSA amended the standard's bonfire test procedures. (65 FR 64624).

Now, under S8.3.2(a) of Standard No. 304, the CNG fuel container is positioned "in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of S8.3.2." Paragraph (b) of S8.3.2 specifies that the CNG fuel container is positioned "so that its longitudinal axis is horizontal and its bottom is 100 mm (4 inches) above the fire source." (Emphasis added). Paragraph (c)(1) of S8.3.2 specifies that a CNG fuel container that is 1.65 meters (65 inches) in length or less is positioned "so that the center of the container is over the center of the fire source." Thus, taken together, paragraphs (b) and (c) of S8.3.2 specify that a CNG fuel container that is 1.65 meters in length or less is positioned so that its longitudinal axis is horizontal, its bottom is 100 mm above the fire source, and its center is over the center of the fire source.

The new bonfire test procedures do not specify that a CNG fuel container that is 1.65 meters in length or less is tested in the vertical position.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey in the Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:304
d.2/13/01

ID: 22597

Mr. Frank Maloziec
Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.
39300 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473





Dear Mr. Maloziec:

This responds to your letter requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, "Light Vehicle Brake Systems." Specifically, you ask whether your Electric Parking Brake (EPB) complies with Standard No. 135. The issues you raise are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and subsequent telephone conversation with this office.

Paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 135 provides: "Each vehicle shall be equipped with a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement." The term "parking brake" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle." Thus, the parking brake must prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle by means of friction. It also must have a "solely mechanical means to retain engagement," meaning that although the parking brake may be applied and released by non-mechanical means, it must be held by solely mechanical means. It cannot be held by non-mechanical means, such as fluid, air, or electricity.

In your letter, you state that the EPB "differs from the traditional mechanical parking brake mainly by the command used in applying the brake and the way the applied force is transmitted to the disc brakes." The EPB "can be engaged or disengaged by pushing a button fitted in the console." When the "electronic control unit (ECU) which manages the system receives an input command from the console mounted button, [it] gives a signal to the electric motors (one for each rear disc or as an alternate, one motor for both rear discs). The motors then apply the brake force via the calipers on the discs."

Since the EPB applies the brake force via calipers on the discs, it is of a friction type. In a conversation with Mr. Dion Casey of this office, you stated that although the EPB is actuated by

electrical means, it is retained by mechanical means. Additional information you submitted by fax on March 16, 2001, provided more details on the two design approaches under consideration. In that fax, you stated, "In the case of a non-reversible mechanism, the self-braking work gear itself guarantees the engagement of the parking brake. In the case of the reversible mechanism, it would be necessary to use a ratchet gear to lock the electric motor." It appears, therefore, that the EPB is "a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement," and would be permitted under the provisions of paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 135.

In response to an analogous interpretation request from General Motors Corporation, we agreed that S5.2 of Standard No. 105 permits the parking brake to be applied and released by electrical or other non-mechanical means so long as the engagement is held by solely mechanical means. We interpret S5.2 of Standard No. 135 similarly.

I hope this answers your question. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Dion Casey at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:135
d.4/19/01

ID: 22613.ztv

Mr. Paul Michelotti
PM Technology
2850 Banyan Blvd. Circle NW
Boca Raton, FL 33431





Dear Mr. Michelotti:

This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 2001, to Frank Seales, Jr., the former Chief Counsel of this agency.

You have asked whether "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or any other federal regulation prohibit a hazard warning operating system that provides for automatic activation of vehicle hazard warning lights in an accident situation, in situations of rapid deceleration to a complete stop, or in situations of rapid deceleration in the speed of a vehicle over a short time interval?"

Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 require motor vehicles to be equipped with vehicular hazard warning signal operating units, as specified in SAE Recommended Practice J910, February 1966. Paragraph 1 of SAE J910 defines the operating unit, in part, as "a driver controlled device which causes all turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously." We interpret "driver controlled" as meaning that the hazard warning signal unit must be activated and deactivated by the driver and not by automatic means.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.2/15/01

ID: 22642

Mr. Davis Freeman
President
Intouch Shipping Technology, Ltd.
2410 Sherman Creek Road
Claire, WI 54703





Dear Mr. Freeman:

This responds to your letter of January 21, 2001. In that letter, you inquired as to how the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to your company's invention, the Trailer Pneumatic Inflation System (TPIS). As described in your letter, the TPIS is an "inflation system, which is available to inflate reusable air bags to cushion freight during shipment from one location to another." TPIS utilizes air from a tractor-trailer's air storage reservoir, normally used to provide reserve air for a trailer's air brake and air suspension systems. You indicate that the TPIS includes an air control unit, which would be connected to the air storage reservoir. The air control unit in turn supplies air to a coupler device. An air hose can then be connected to the coupler device to inflate air bags used for protecting cargo inside a trailer. Air from the hose would also be available for inflating or otherwise providing pressurized air to a wide variety of auxiliary components associated with the trailer, such as inflatable bags, pneumatic tools, tires, etc. You further indicate that the TPIS is equipped with several devices that prevent it from interfering with the function of the trailer brakes. Specifically, TPIS comes with a control valve so a user can shut the system off, and a brake protection valve, which you indicate would isolate the inflation system from the air storage reservoir in the event that the air pressure of the reservoir drops below a predetermined value.

With regard to TPIS, you ask three questions:

1) Will the TPIS comply with Federal Section 571.121, Air Brake Systems?

2) Are there any other federal standards, codes or regulations that will apply to the Trailer Pneumatic Inflation System TPIS?

3) Will TPIS comply with the other federal standards, codes, or regulations that apply?

By way of background information, Chapter of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 30101 et.seq.) "Motor Vehicle Safety" authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR '571.121), which establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. In addition, since the TPIS would be installed into the existing pneumatic brake system of a vehicle, the provisions of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR '571.106), which establishes requirements for motor vehicle brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings, may also apply. If the TPIS is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121 (49 U.S.C. ''30112(a)). If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR '567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (49 U.S.C. '30122).

In addition, under Chapter 301, the TPIS would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 301 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge (49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121).

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations relating to auxiliary inflators or air bags intended to cushion commercial cargo. However, since the TPIS system relies on the air supply also used to power trailer brakes, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121. Based on our review of the materials provided with your letter, it appears that proper installation of the TPIS in an air brake system that otherwise meets the requirements of Standard No. 121, would not take the vehicle out of compliance with the standard.

Your letter indicates that the TPIS incorporates a valve that would isolate the TPIS system from the pneumatic brake system in the event of a loss of air pressure. It has been NHTSA's long-standing position that accessory air lines and end fittings, such as those used in your product, are "brake hoses" and "brake hose end fittings" only if a failure of the line or fitting would result in a loss of pressure in the vehicle's brake system.

Accordingly, if a failure of any of the accessory lines or fittings used with your product could result in a loss of pressure in the brake system, those hoses and fittings are subject to all the provisions of Standard No. 106. In this case, the Safety Act specifies that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any of those hoses or end fittings unless those hoses and end fittings comply with all of the applicable requirements in Standard No. 106.

One method used by vehicle manufacturers to protect the air system is to connect air accessories to a pressure protection valve that stops air flowing from a reservoir if there is a failure in the accessory. It may be preferable to sense loss of pressure or excess flow in the accessory line to activate the shut-off feature rather than permitting the reservoir to become partially depleted prior to activating the shut-off feature. The design of such systems may affect whether the accessory air lines are considered brake hoses, depending on the effects of failures in those hoses on the braking system. Therefore, some analysis of how your system affects the air brake system of a vehicle may be necessary to determine whether the accessory air lines are, in fact, brake hoses and whether suitable design features are provided in the event of a failure of the accessory system.

You also ask if there are other Federal standards or regulations that would apply to the TPIS. To the extent that your inquiry is confined to standards administered by this agency, there are no other NHTSA regulations or standards that would apply. Other federal standards, particularly those of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), may apply to the use of the TPIS on on-road vehicles. You may wish to contact the FMCSA Wisconsin Service Center at 567 D'Onofrio Drive, Suite 101, Madison, WI 53719-2814. The telephone number for this FMCSA office is (608) 829-7530.

In regard to your third question, this office is not in a position to offer any opinions about the compliance of the TPIS with any other Federal regulations, nor do we offer any opinion as to whether use of the TIPS is permissible under state law.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.4/26/01

ID: 22652.ztv

AIR MAIL





Mr. Richard King
Manager/Director
Wheel Lighting Devices, Ltd.
Downs Road South Brydone R.D. 4
Gore, New Zealand


FAX: 64 3 2066786




Dear Mr. King:

John A. Hill has asked that we send our reply to you responding to his e-mails of January 4 and February 2, 2001, in which he asked for an interpretation of U.S. Federal laws as they relate to "HubLites." His e-mails have been supplemented by yours of March 5, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Mr. Hill explained that HubLites are "novelty lighting equipment," installed on the hubs of heavy trucks and trailers. It is equipment offered in the aftermarket and will "be retrofitted by truck owners themselves." In his opinion, HubLites do not interfere with any of the lighting equipment required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have informed us that HubLites are steady-burning and "orange/amber" in color.

The installation of aftermarket lighting equipment under the laws of the United States is governed by 49 U.S.C. 30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative. Essentially, this section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from modifications that create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, Section 30122 does not include owners in the list of persons prohibited from making modifications. Mr. Hill has informed us that HubLites will be installed by truck owners. Thus, the prohibition would not appear to apply. However, the use of HubLites is subject to the laws of the individual states in which they are used, and we are unable to advise you on these.

We differ with Mr. Hill's unsupported conclusion that HubLites would not interfere with any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The fact that a vehicle owner may legally modify his or her vehicle in a manner that would cause it to no longer comply with a Federal safety standard does not mean that it is wise to do so; in fact, it lowers the safety level of the vehicle. I would call your attention to a similar product which was the subject of an opinion letter from this Office of March 15, 1989, to Byung M. Soh. In that instance, the product was a self-lighting hub cap which included a motion-activated LED light whose intensity varied according to the speed of the vehicle. We stated our belief that "effectiveness [of some required lamps] may be impaired if the device created . . . confusion with the signal sent by another lamp," and that the hubcap light might cause "motorists to confuse its signal with the signal emitted by headlamps, stoplights, brakelights, taillights, side marker lamps, and other lighting devices." In our opinion, "such confusion is possible since your product is located on the wheels at approximately the same level as some of the lights required by Standard No. 108. This impairment of effectiveness would be especially likely if the hub cap lights were the same color (red, amber, or white) as the lights required by Standard No. 108." The previous two sentences apply equally as well to the factors of color and location of HubLites; they would not be permissible under Standard No. 108 as original equipment. Although a truck or trailer owner may install HubLites without violating Section 30122, this should not be interpreted or advertised as indicating U.S. "approval" of HubLites. We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" vehicles or equipment; we only advise as to the relationship of these products to the laws that we administer.

Mr. Hill asked if other Federal safety laws might apply. Trucks and trailers used in interstate commerce within the United States are subject to the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the Department of Transportation. We have asked the FMCSA whether HubLites would be prohibited by any of its regulations, and it has informed us that HubLites would not be allowable. Section 393.3 (49 CFR 393.3) of the FMCSA's safety regulations prohibit interstate motor carriers from using additional equipment and accessories if the use of such devices is inconsistent with that agency's regulations, or if the use of such devices decreases the safety of operation of the vehicles on which they are used. With respect to vehicles that it regulates, FMCSA concurs with the impairment conclusions that we have reached. Because 49 CFR 393.11 requires interstate motor carriers to maintain their vehicles to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, and HubLites would not be permissible under Standard No. 108, HubLites may not be used on trucks and trailers used in interstate commerce and regulated by the FMCSA.

Mr. Hill also asked if there are any other Federal rules that the manufacturer of HubLites should be aware of in order to sell motor vehicle equipment in the United States, such as the need to have a registered agent (the product would be imported from New Zealand). HubLites are motor vehicle equipment. This means that Wheel Lighting Devices, Ltd. must designate an agent for service of process, as set forth in 49 C.F.R. 551.45, Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers.

Additionally, you should be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you will be subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of motor vehicle equipment with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either you or we determine that HubLites contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would be required to notify purchasers of the defect, and either repair HubLites so that the defect is removed, or provide a non-defective replacement. In either case, your company must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than ten years before the notification campaign.

If you have any questions, you may email Taylor Vinson at tvinson@nhtsa.dot.gov.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/12/01